INTRODUCTION

The term “confession” is nowhere defined in Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The word
“confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This
section comes under the heading of “admission” so it is clear that the confessions are mere
species of admission. All the provisions relating to confessions occur under the heading of
“admission.” This shows the legislative intent of not distinguishing between an “admission”
and a “confession”, so far as atleast definition is concerned. The definition of “admission” as
given in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 becomes applicable to confession also.
Section 17 of the Act defines “admission” as “a statement oral or documentary, which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.” If such a statement is made by
a party to civil proceedings it will be called an “admission” and if it is made by a party
charged with a crime or to criminal proceedings it will be called a “confession”. Thus, in
terms of the Act, a confession is a statement made by a person charged with crime suggesting
an inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts.

Mr. Justice Stephen in his Digest of the Law of Evidence defined confession as “confession
is an admission made at any time by person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed that crime.” According to this definition a statement of an
accused will amount to a confession if it fulfills any of the following two conditions:

1. If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with, or

2. If he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet from the
statement some inference may be drawn that he might have committed the crime.

FORM OF CONFESSION
Confession may be divided into two categories:-

1) Judicial confession, and

2) Extra-Judicial confession Judicial

 Judicial Confession :
Confession Judicial confessions are those confessions which are made before a Magistrate or
in Court in the due course of legal proceedings. Judicial confession has been defined to mean
“plea of guilty on arrangement (before a tribunal) if made freely by a person in a fit state of
mind.” A is accused of having killed B. He may, before the trial begins confess the guilt
before some Magistrate who may record it in accordance with the provisions of Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. At the committal proceedings before the Magistrate or at the trial before
Sessions Judge, A may confess his guilt. All these are judicial confessions. Judicial
confessions should be distinguished from extrajudicial confessions. It may be doubted
whether a conviction can be based solely upon an extra-judicial confession but there is no
reason for hesitating to base conviction on a judicial confession. A confessional statement
made by the accused before a Magistrate or a Court is a good piece of evidence and the
accused can be convicted or punished on the basis of this judicial confession.

 Extra-Judicial confession Judicial :

Extra-judicial confessions are those confessions which are made by the accused
anywhere else than before a Magistrate or in Court and extra-judicial confession can
be made to any particular person or to a group of persons. It is not necessary that the
statements should have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken
place in the form of a prayer. A confession to a private person is extra-judicial. For
extra-judicial confession communication to another is not an essential component to
constitute ‘statement’.The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of
evidence and so it should be taken with great care and caution. In State of Punjab v.
Bhagwan Singh, it was held by Supreme Court that extra-judicial confession can be
relied on only when it is clear consistent and convincing. In Balwinder Singh v.
State, the Supreme Court held that in case of extra-judicial confession, the credibility
of the person before whom the confession is made, shall be tested and the court has to
see whether the person is trustworthy or not. In Sahadevan v. State of Tamil
Nadu,the Supreme Court held that extra-judicial confession is admissible and for it
the following principles form the basis of conviction:-
 It is weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and
caution.
 It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
 It should inspire confidence.
 An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is
supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
 For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from
any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
 Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with
law.